Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bca-mcp

bca-mcp

by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_tx

Decode a blockchain transaction to retrieve sender, receiver, value, events, and status on multiple chains including Ethereum and Solana.

Instructions

Decode a transaction: sender, receiver, value, decoded events, status. Starter tier.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "hash": "<hash>"
    },
    "name": "get_tx"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesTransaction hash.
chainNoChain slug: ethereum, solana, arbitrum, base, optimism, polygon, bsc.ethereum

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool decodes a transaction and returns specific fields (sender, receiver, value, events, status), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention idempotency, authorization needs, or error behavior, which would be beneficial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and output, making it efficient for quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields (sender, receiver, value, events, status). This provides sufficient context for a simple two-parameter tool. However, missing details on failure modes or edge cases prevent a perfect score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add value beyond the schema, as the parameters are already clearly defined with descriptions and examples (e.g., chain enum). No additional semantic context is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Decode a transaction' and lists the decoded components (sender, receiver, value, etc.), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ohlc or get_price, which focus on different data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other transaction-related tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools